Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T10:26:11.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Plausibility of Research Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Arthur B. Millman
Arthur B. Millman*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Feyerabend, Kuhn, and Lakatos have held that no objective reasons can be given for entertaining or working on a particular new theory, paradigm, or research program. I shall examine one of the-main cases they appeal to and argue that, although Copernicus's theory was not superior to the Ptolemaic theory according to any of the usual criteria for comparing theories, it did have features which provided the early Copernicans with good reasons for entertaining it and trying to develop it further.

Let us begin with Feyerabend. He has been a vigorous advocate of a “principle of proliferation” according to which scientists should always be considering alternatives to the theories currently accepted. Indeed, Feyerabend holds that scientists should strive to “invent and elaborate theories which are inconsistent with the accepted point of view, even if the latter should happen to be highly confirmed and generally accepted” ([4] , p.26).

Type
Part IV. History and Philosophy of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1976 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1976 , 1976 , pp. 140 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dijksterhuis, E. J. The Mechanization of the World Picture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Dreyer, J. L. E. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York: Dover, 1953.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. “Realism and Instrumental ism: Comments on the Logic of Factual Support.” In The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy. Edited by Bunge, M.. New York: Macmillan, 1964. Pages 280-308.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. “Against Method.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. IV. Edited by Radner, M. and Winokur, S.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970. Pages 17-130.Google Scholar
Hall, R.J. “Kuhn and the Copernican Revolution.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21 (1970): 196-197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970., Pages 91-196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. VIII. Edited by Buck, R. and Cohen, R.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1971. Pages 91-136.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. “Replies to Critics.” In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. VIII. Edited by Buck, R. and Cohen, R.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1971. Pages 174-182.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. and Zahar, E. “Why Did Copernicus’ Research Program Supersede Ptolemy's?” In The Copernican Achievement. Edited by R. Westman. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975. Pages 354-383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palter, R. “An Approach to the History of Early Astronomy.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science I (1970): 93-133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, D.J. de S. “Contra-Copernicus: a Critical Re-estimation of the Mathematical Planetary Theory of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Kepler.” In Critical Problems in the History of Science. Edited by Clagett, M.. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1959. Pages 197-218.Google Scholar